Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:Concerned about expanding the penetration of their music: Yes

geez, the guy gets laid one time, and suddenly it's all he can think about

the memory is likely going to have to sustain me for at least another month. Mia is waking up 4-5 times a night.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: Concerned about expanding the penetration of their music: Yes

Help me understand how this is not a desire for commercial success? I understand that you think it's not their primary concern (and we disagree on that), but you're just playing with words here.

Because you rolled the importance of selling more records to make more money as a fundamental part of your definition of what commercial success includes. I think it is a welcome byproduct (I don't think they're kicking money out of bed), but I think the goal is to have more people listening to their music because as artists they like that and as activists they like the platform. So the idea behind writing Sirens or the Fixer is not $$$. it is reach. If you want to strip the $$$ from commercial success than sure, I'm happy to agree, but given how you are defining it I can't sign onto that. I don't think money is a principle motivator--especially one that would be comprising the quality of/concern about the music.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: I think these concerns have led to a return to writing songs that are more immediate and less insular: yes (which has been the approach used on Ten, Vs, Yield, S/T, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt--nothing new here--it's a different style of writing that has defined more than half their studio career)

Does this imply that you believe the songs on S/T, Backspacer, and LB are equally "immediate and less insular" as the songs on Ten, Vs, & Yield? That's a little difficult to understand.

Yes, I do think that. In my opinion, I don't think the end product is as good as the stuff on Ten or Vs (I think they're as good or better than most of Yield, but Yield is not a favorite), but I think the approach to writing is the same.

Also, I like your santa hat

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: Concerned about expanding the penetration of their music: Yes

Help me understand how this is not a desire for commercial success? I understand that you think it's not their primary concern (and we disagree on that), but you're just playing with words here.

Because you rolled the importance of selling more records to make more money as a fundamental part of your definition of what commercial success includes. I think it is a welcome byproduct (I don't think they're kicking money out of bed), but I think the goal is to have more people listening to their music because as artists they like that and as activists they like the platform. So the idea behind writing Sirens or the Fixer is not $$$. it is reach. If you want to strip the $$$ from commercial success than sure, I'm happy to agree, but given how you are defining it I can't sign onto that. I don't think money is a principle motivator--especially one that would be comprising the quality of/concern about the music.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: I think these concerns have led to a return to writing songs that are more immediate and less insular: yes (which has been the approach used on Ten, Vs, Yield, S/T, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt--nothing new here--it's a different style of writing that has defined more than half their studio career)

Does this imply that you believe the songs on S/T, Backspacer, and LB are equally "immediate and less insular" as the songs on Ten, Vs, & Yield? That's a little difficult to understand.

Yes, I do think that. In my opinion, I don't think the end product is as good as the stuff on Ten or Vs (I think they're as good or better than most of Yield, but Yield is not a favorite), but I think the approach to writing is the same.

Also, I like your santa hat

OK

I think we've finally reached a simple description of the two core items that we disagree on-

1) I believe that the potential for money to be made is what is driving the band's decisions and leadership direction, and that this is compromising the quality of the music they would have otherwise made. You do not. You believe that the decisions and direction are driven more by the potential to reach people than the amount of money those people will spend, and that if the music has been compromised, it is due to other factors.

2) You feel the post-Riot Act records were conceived, written, and produced with the same basic goals as Ten, Vs. and Yield. I do not. In other words, you see similarities between all of these records and their promotion, whereas I feel the last three were conceived, written, and produced with significantly different goals in mind than the 1st three you mention.

Does this capture it, or am I still way off base in your judgment?

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



We just wanna make music, man. Fuck big companies. Fuck business bullshit. We don't give a fuck about that. It's just about the music, man.
_____________________________________________________________________
Pearl Jam Post-Riot Act



Fuck. We don't have any other employable skills. If we keep going the way we are going, what are we going to retire on? From now on, we are a company. We are doing business. It's about sustaining a regular comfortable income we can live on, support our families, and retire on.

How about you post a picture of YOURSELF 1993 vs 2011. Would you look and act different?

Tuolumne wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



We just wanna make music, man. Fuck big companies. Fuck business bullshit. We don't give a fuck about that. It's just about the music, man.
_____________________________________________________________________
Pearl Jam Post-Riot Act



Fuck. We don't have any other employable skills. If we keep going the way we are going, what are we going to retire on? From now on, we are a company. We are doing business. It's about sustaining a regular comfortable income we can live on, support our families, and retire on.

How about you post a picture of YOURSELF 1993 vs 2011. Would you look and act different?

was that a serious argument w. these pictures? "they dress all corporate now!"...no shit, they are in their 40s. its like the metallica fans that got mad when they cut their hair.

I thought Sarge was just trying to be funny

Tuolumne wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



We just wanna make music, man. Fuck big companies. Fuck business bullshit. We don't give a fuck about that. It's just about the music, man.
_____________________________________________________________________
Pearl Jam Post-Riot Act



Fuck. We don't have any other employable skills. If we keep going the way we are going, what are we going to retire on? From now on, we are a company. We are doing business. It's about sustaining a regular comfortable income we can live on, support our families, and retire on.

How about you post a picture of YOURSELF 1993 vs 2011. Would you look and act different?

Spoiler: show

Tuolumne wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



We just wanna make music, man. Fuck big companies. Fuck business bullshit. We don't give a fuck about that. It's just about the music, man.
_____________________________________________________________________
Pearl Jam Post-Riot Act



Fuck. We don't have any other employable skills. If we keep going the way we are going, what are we going to retire on? From now on, we are a company. We are doing business. It's about sustaining a regular comfortable income we can live on, support our families, and retire on.

How about you post a picture of YOURSELF 1993 vs 2011. Would you look and act different?

Sarge was 8 in 1993, don't be creepy.

I'm rocking a bit of a flannel look today now that you mention it.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: Concerned about expanding the penetration of their music: Yes

Help me understand how this is not a desire for commercial success? I understand that you think it's not their primary concern (and we disagree on that), but you're just playing with words here.

Because you rolled the importance of selling more records to make more money as a fundamental part of your definition of what commercial success includes. I think it is a welcome byproduct (I don't think they're kicking money out of bed), but I think the goal is to have more people listening to their music because as artists they like that and as activists they like the platform. So the idea behind writing Sirens or the Fixer is not $$$. it is reach. If you want to strip the $$$ from commercial success than sure, I'm happy to agree, but given how you are defining it I can't sign onto that. I don't think money is a principle motivator--especially one that would be comprising the quality of/concern about the music.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: I think these concerns have led to a return to writing songs that are more immediate and less insular: yes (which has been the approach used on Ten, Vs, Yield, S/T, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt--nothing new here--it's a different style of writing that has defined more than half their studio career)

Does this imply that you believe the songs on S/T, Backspacer, and LB are equally "immediate and less insular" as the songs on Ten, Vs, & Yield? That's a little difficult to understand.

Yes, I do think that. In my opinion, I don't think the end product is as good as the stuff on Ten or Vs (I think they're as good or better than most of Yield, but Yield is not a favorite), but I think the approach to writing is the same.

Also, I like your santa hat

OK

I think we've finally reached a simple description of the two core items that we disagree on-

1) I believe that the potential for money to be made is what is driving the band's decisions and leadership direction, and that this is compromising the quality of the music they would have otherwise made. You do not. You believe that the decisions and direction are driven more by the potential to reach people than the amount of money those people will spend, and that if the music has been compromised, it is due to other factors.

2) You feel the post-Riot Act records were conceived, written, and produced with the same basic goals as Ten, Vs. and Yield. I do not. In other words, you see similarities between all of these records and their promotion, whereas I feel the last three were conceived, written, and produced with significantly different goals in mind than the 1st three you mention.

Does this capture it, or am I still way off base in your judgment?

that seems broadly accurate. Especially number 1. As far as 2, I've drawn an approach between writing that was inwardly and outwardly focused, and it's the outward focus I think they share. Thematic ideas are different, and I would not agree that the promotion was the same. The album that comes closest to the last 3 is Yield. But even then I think comparing what they used to do with what they did now is not especially useful because

A: the nature of the industry and how people hear and access and are exposed to music is fundamentally different

B: they used to be on a major label, which did all their thinking and marketing for them. Kind of like how Henry David Thoreau went out to Walden Pond to write about how great it is to live simply while his mother came every week to do his laundry.

theplatypus wrote:I thought Sarge was just trying to be funny

yeah.

stip wrote:

theplatypus wrote:I thought Sarge was just trying to be funny

yeah.

Yep. Well..

theplatypus wrote:trying to

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



We just wanna make music, man. Fuck big companies. Fuck business bullshit. We don't give a fuck about that. It's just about the music, man.
_____________________________________________________________________

we are open to the idea of making a cameo in a Hollywood romantic comedy though

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: Concerned about expanding the penetration of their music: Yes

Help me understand how this is not a desire for commercial success? I understand that you think it's not their primary concern (and we disagree on that), but you're just playing with words here.

Because you rolled the importance of selling more records to make more money as a fundamental part of your definition of what commercial success includes. I think it is a welcome byproduct (I don't think they're kicking money out of bed), but I think the goal is to have more people listening to their music because as artists they like that and as activists they like the platform. So the idea behind writing Sirens or the Fixer is not $$$. it is reach. If you want to strip the $$$ from commercial success than sure, I'm happy to agree, but given how you are defining it I can't sign onto that. I don't think money is a principle motivator--especially one that would be comprising the quality of/concern about the music.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: I think these concerns have led to a return to writing songs that are more immediate and less insular: yes (which has been the approach used on Ten, Vs, Yield, S/T, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt--nothing new here--it's a different style of writing that has defined more than half their studio career)

Does this imply that you believe the songs on S/T, Backspacer, and LB are equally "immediate and less insular" as the songs on Ten, Vs, & Yield? That's a little difficult to understand.

Yes, I do think that. In my opinion, I don't think the end product is as good as the stuff on Ten or Vs (I think they're as good or better than most of Yield, but Yield is not a favorite), but I think the approach to writing is the same.

Also, I like your santa hat

OK

I think we've finally reached a simple description of the two core items that we disagree on-

1) I believe that the potential for money to be made is what is driving the band's decisions and leadership direction, and that this is compromising the quality of the music they would have otherwise made. You do not. You believe that the decisions and direction are driven more by the potential to reach people than the amount of money those people will spend, and that if the music has been compromised, it is due to other factors.

2) You feel the post-Riot Act records were conceived, written, and produced with the same basic goals as Ten, Vs. and Yield. I do not. In other words, you see similarities between all of these records and their promotion, whereas I feel the last three were conceived, written, and produced with significantly different goals in mind than the 1st three you mention.

Does this capture it, or am I still way off base in your judgment?

that seems broadly accurate. Especially number 1. As far as 2, I've drawn an approach between writing that was inwardly and outwardly focused, and it's the outward focus I think they share. Thematic ideas are different, and I would not agree that the promotion was the same. The album that comes closest to the last 3 is Yield. But even then I think comparing what they used to do with what they did now is not especially useful because

A: the nature of the industry and how people hear and access and are exposed to music is fundamentally different

B: they used to be on a major label, which did all their thinking and marketing for them. Kind of like how Henry David Thoreau went out to Walden Pond to write about how great it is to live simply while his mother came every week to do his laundry.

OK, I understand all of that and pretty much agree with your clarifications on point 2 after considering your statements.

Pheww.... Glad we've got that settled.... Now we can...

Nice topical picture!

stip wrote:Nice topical picture!

This is a nice tropical picture


Oh wait, you said "topical"

Spoiler: show

ba-dum-bump

Is this the worst non-Broken Iris thread on RM?

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



_____________________________________________________________________
Pearl Jam Post-Riot Act

Matt's had a lot of work done

bodysnatcher wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



_____________________________________________________________________
Pearl Jam Post-Riot Act

Matt's had a lot of work done

And Stone's still a big dork.

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Pearl Jam Pre-Riot Act



_____________________________________________________________________
Pearl Jam Post-Riot Act

Matt's had a lot of work done

And Stone's still a big dork.

and Dave looks like a completely different person!